Prophylactic antibiotic treatment in acute necrotizing pancreatitis: results from a meta-analysis

Antibiotic Utilization in Acute Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review

Acute pancreatitis is a complex inflammatory disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite advances in its management, the role of antibiotics in the prophylaxis and treatment of acute pancreatitis remains controversial. The aim of this comprehensive review is to analyze current evidence on the use of antibiotics in acute pancreatitis, focusing on prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. Prophylactic use aims to prevent local and systemic infections. However, recent studies have questioned the routine use of antibiotics for prophylaxis and highlighted the potential risks of antibiotic resistance and adverse effects. In selected high-risk cases, such as infected necrotizing pancreatitis, prophylactic antibiotic therapy may still be beneficial. As for therapeutic use, antibiotics are usually used to treat infected pancreatic necrosis and extrapancreatic infections. When selecting an antibiotic, the microbiologic profile and local resistance patterns should be considered. Combination therapy with broad-spectrum antibiotics is often recommended to cover both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens. Recent research has highlighted the importance of individualized approaches to antibiotic use in acute pancreatitis and underscored the need for a tailored approach based on patient-specific factors. This review also highlights the potential role of new antimicrobial agents and alternative strategies, such as probiotics, in the management of acute pancreatitis.

Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the management of the intensive care patient with severe acute pancreatitis.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 22 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline construction process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The most recent SFAR and SNFGE guidelines on the management of the patient with severe pancreatitis were published in 2001. The literature now is sufficient for an update. The committee studied 14 questions within 3 fields. Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the relevant evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and their application of the GRADE® method resulted in 24 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 8 have high levels of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have moderate levels of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 4 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. Four questions did not find any response in the literature. After one round of scoring, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts for 24 recommendations to improve practices for the management of intensive care patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Assessment of Prophylactic Carbapenem Antibiotics Administration for Severe Acute Pancreatitis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) remains a debatable issue. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.

METHODS

This meta-analysis of prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics for SAP was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library up to February 2021. The related bibliographies were manually searched. The primary outcomes involved infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis, mortality, complications, infections, and organ failure.

RESULTS

Seven articles comprised 5 randomized controlled trials and 2 retrospective observational studies, including 3,864 SAP participants. Prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP were associated with a statistically significant reduction in the incidence of infections (odds ratio [OR]: 0.27; p = 0.03) and complications (OR: 0.48; p = 0.009). Nevertheless, no statistically significant difference was demonstrated in the incidence of infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis (OR: 0.74; p = 0.24), mortality (OR: 0.69; p = 0.17), extrapancreatic infection (OR: 0.64, p = 0.54), pulmonary infection (OR: 1.23; p = 0.69), blood infection (OR: 0.60; p = 0.35), urinary tract infection (OR: 0.97; p = 0.97), pancreatic pseudocyst (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28), fluid collection (OR: 0.91; p = 0.76), organ failure (OR: 0.63; p = 0.19), acute respiratory distress syndrome (OR: 0.80; p = 0.61), surgical intervention (OR: 0.97; p = 0.93), dialysis (OR: 2.34; p = 0.57), use of respirator or ventilator (OR: 1.90; p = 0.40), intensive care unit treatment (OR: 2.97; p = 0.18), and additional antibiotics (OR: 0.59; p = 0.28) between the experimental and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

It is not recommended to administer routine prophylactic carbapenem antibiotics in SAP.

The microbiology of infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis (AP) continues to cause significant morbidity and mortality, especially when it leads to infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Modern treatment of IPN frequently involves prolonged courses of antibiotics in combination with minimally invasive therapies. This study aimed to update the existing evidence base by identifying the pathogens causing IPN and therefore aid future selection of empirical antibiotics.

METHODS

Clinical data, including microbiology results, of consecutive patients with IPN undergoing minimally invasive necrosectomy at our institution between January 2009 and July 2016 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

The results of 40 patients (22 males and 18 females, median age 60 years) with IPN were reviewed. The etiology of AP was gallstones, alcohol, dyslipidemia and unknown in 31, 2, 2 and 5 patients, respectively. The most frequently identified microbes in microbiology cultures were Enterococcus faecalis and faecium (22.5% and 20.0%) and Escherichia coli (20.0%). In 19 cases the cultures grew multiple organisms. The antibiotics with the least resistance amongst the microbiota were teicoplanin (5.0%), linezolid (5.6%), ertapenem (6.5%), and meropenem (7.4%).

CONCLUSION

The carbapenem antibiotics, ertapenem and meropenem provide good antimicrobial cover against the common, mainly enteral, microorganisms causing IPN. Culture and sensitivity results of acquired samples should be regularly reviewed to adjust prescribing and monitor for emergence of resistance.

Two-point measurement of amylase in drainage fluid predicts severe postoperative pancreatic fistula after gastric cancer surgery

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients at risk of postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) allows appropriate management after gastrectomy. Although some reports have suggested a correlation between POPF and the concentration of amylase in drained abdominal fluid (D-AMY), this has not been proven to impact sufficiently on clinical decision-making. A sustained high level of D-AMY is often assumed to be due to unsatisfactory drainage or excessive pancreatic leakage. We assessed the clinical utility of measuring D-AMY on postoperative day (POD) 1 and POD3 for prediction of POPF.

METHODS

Starting in April 2014, 801 patients who underwent radical gastrectomy with prophylactic drain placement were consecutively enrolled. We routinely measured D-AMY on POD1 and POD3, and compared the incidence of problematic POPF and clinical factors including D-AMY. We also attempted to clarify whether such two-point D-AMY measurement was clinically useful for patient management after gastrectomy.

RESULTS

Fifty-one of the patients (6.4%) developed Clavien-Dindo grade III or worse POPF. Using D-AMY cutoffs of 2218 IU/L on POD1 and 555 IU/L on POD3, the patients were successfully classified. The highest risk group, in which D-AMY was higher than the cut-off value on both POD1 and POD3, showed a significantly high rate of occurrence (33/105, 31.4%) and high positive likelihood ratio (6.74). Multivariate analysis showed that classification into this highest risk group was an independent risk factor for development of severe POPF (odds ratio 15.2, 95% CI 7.92-29.0).

CONCLUSION

Two-point measurement of D-AMY may be an efficient tool for achieving individualized management of POPF following radical gastrectomy.

Fungal Infections in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis and Pseudocysts: Risk Factors and Outcome

OBJECTIVES

Fungal infections in patients with acute pancreatitis are common and potentially life threatening. Data on fungal pancreatic infections are inconsistent. Therefore, the aim of this study was to identify risk factors for fungal infection and to determine their impact on survival.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of pathogen spectrum and outcome of infected pancreatic necrosis or pseudocysts from 3 German hospitals from 2002 to 2016.

RESULTS

A total of 187 fine-needle aspirations were performed in 113 patients. Fungal pancreatic infections, predominantly caused by Candida species, were identified in 52 patients (46%). Antibiotic treatment before fine-needle aspiration (84.6% vs 49.2%, P = 0.003) and the duration of therapy (9 vs 2 days, P = 0.024) identified patients at an increased risk of fungal infection. Patients with fungal pancreatic infections had a longer hospital stay (34 vs 14 days, P < 0.001), received intensive care treatment more often (55.8% vs 27.9%, P = 0.002), and had a lower 365-day survival (78.4 [SE, 6.6%] vs 95.0 [SE, 2.0%], P = 0.035) than patients with bacterial pancreatic infections only.

CONCLUSIONS

Fungal infections are common in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis and pseudocysts and indicate patients with a higher risk of mortality in the long term.

The Surgical Infection Society Revised Guidelines on the Management of Intra-Abdominal Infection

BACKGROUND

Previous evidence-based guidelines on the management of intra-abdominal infection (IAI) were published by the Surgical Infection Society (SIS) in 1992, 2002, and 2010. At the time the most recent guideline was released, the plan was to update the guideline every five years to ensure the timeliness and appropriateness of the recommendations.

METHODS

Based on the previous guidelines, the task force outlined a number of topics related to the treatment of patients with IAI and then developed key questions on these various topics. All questions were approached using general and specific literature searches, focusing on articles and other information published since 2008. These publications and additional materials published before 2008 were reviewed by the task force as a whole or by individual subgroups as to relevance to individual questions. Recommendations were developed by a process of iterative consensus, with all task force members voting to accept or reject each recommendation. Grading was based on the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) system; the quality of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, or weak, and the strength of the recommendation was graded as strong or weak. Review of the document was performed by members of the SIS who were not on the task force. After responses were made to all critiques, the document was approved as an official guideline of the SIS by the Executive Council.

RESULTS

This guideline summarizes the current recommendations developed by the task force on the treatment of patients who have IAI. Evidence-based recommendations have been made regarding risk assessment in individual patients; source control; the timing, selection, and duration of antimicrobial therapy; and suggested approaches to patients who fail initial therapy. Additional recommendations related to the treatment of pediatric patients with IAI have been included.

SUMMARY

The current recommendations of the SIS regarding the treatment of patients with IAI are provided in this guideline.

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

Prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: endless debate

INTRODUCTION The development of pancreatic infection is associated with the development of a deteriorating disease with subsequent high morbidity and mortality. There is agreement that in mild pancreatitis there is no need to use antibiotics; in severe pancreatitis it would appear to be a logical choice to use antibiotics to prevent secondary pancreatic infection and decrease associated mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS A non-systematic review of current evidence, meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials was conducted to assess the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis and whether it might improve morbidity and mortality in pancreatitis. RESULTS Mixed evidence was found to support and refute the role of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis. Most studies have failed to demonstrate much benefit from its routine use. Data from our unit suggested little benefit of their routine use, and showed that the mortality of those treated with antibiotics was significantly higher compared with those not treated with antibiotics (9% vs 0%, respectively, P = 0.043). In addition, the antibiotic group had significantly higher morbidity (36% vs 5%, respectively, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS Antibiotics should be used in patients who develop sepsis, infected necrosis-related systemic inflammatory response syndrome, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome or pancreatic and extra-pancreatic infection. Despite the many other factors that should be considered, prompt antibiotic therapy is recommended once inflammatory markers are raised, to prevent secondary pancreatic infection. Unfortunately, there remain many unanswered questions regarding the indications for antibiotic administration and the patients who benefit from antibiotic treatment in acute pancreatitis.

Antibiosis of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a life-threatening presentation of acute pancreatitis. The mortality of 20-80% initially depends on the persistence of organ failure and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) and, in the later course of the disease, on secondary infection of the necrosis. The questions whether prophylactic antibiotics aiming to prevent this infection should be administered and which antibiotic is the best to use, as well as the problem of fungal infection under antibiotic treatment are still intriguing and insufficiently solved.

METHODS

A search of the literature using PubMed was carried out, supplemented by a review of the programmes of the Digestive Disease Week (DDW) and the United European Gastroenterology Week (UEGW).

RESULTS

Despite the widely practised prophylactic antibiotic administration in severe pancreatitis, no evidence for the benefit of this strategy exists. One of the drawbacks might be a tendency for disastrous fungal infection under prophylactic antibiotics. Bacterial translocation from the gut in the second week after the onset of symptoms is the major source for infection of pancreatic necrosis and provides a clear indication for antibiotic treatment. However, routine fine-needle aspiration for a calculated antibiotic therapy cannot be recommended, and all other tests offer only indirect signs. Important factors such as enteral versus parenteral feeding and the method of necrosectomy are mostly neglected in the trials but seem to be essential for the outcome of the patient.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though most meta-analyses including the newer double-blind, placebo-controlled trials on prophylactic antibiotics showed no beneficial effects in the prevention of infection of necrosis and/or outcome of the patients, this strategy is still widely used in clinical routine. Since nearly all trials published so far show systematic problems (i.e. inaccurate definition of the severity of the disease, poor statistical testing, and neglect of differences in the route of nutrition), there is a need for randomized controlled prospective trials with exact definitions of the disease.

Japanese guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis: Japanese Guidelines 2015

BACKGROUND

Japanese (JPN) guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis were published in 2006. The severity assessment criteria for acute pancreatitis were later revised by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in 2008, leading to their publication as the JPN Guidelines 2010. Following the 2012 revision of the Atlanta Classifications of Acute Pancreatitis, in which the classifications of regional complications of pancreatitis were revised, the development of a minimally invasive method for local complications of pancreatitis spread, and emerging evidence was gathered and revised into the JPN Guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive evaluation was carried out on the evidence for epidemiology, diagnosis, severity, treatment, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis and clinical indicators, based on the concepts of the GRADE system (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). With the graded recommendations, where the evidence was unclear, Meta-Analysis team for JPN Guidelines 2015 conducted an additional new meta-analysis, the results of which were included in the guidelines.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questions were prepared in 17 subject areas, for which 43 recommendations were made. The 17 subject areas were: Diagnosis, Diagnostic imaging, Etiology, Severity assessment, Transfer indication, Fluid therapy, Nasogastric tube, Pain control, Antibiotics prophylaxis, Protease inhibitor, Nutritional support, Intensive care, management of Biliary Pancreatitis, management of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome, Interventions for the local complications, Post-ERCP pancreatitis and Clinical Indicator (Pancreatitis Bundles 2015). Meta-analysis was conducted in the following four subject areas based on randomized controlled trials: (1) prophylactic antibiotics use; (2) prophylactic pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; (3) prophylactic non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis; and (4) peritoneal lavage. Using the results of the meta-analysis, recommendations were graded to create useful information. In addition, a mobile application was developed, which made it possible to diagnose, assess severity and check pancreatitis bundles.

CONCLUSIONS

The JPN Guidelines 2015 were prepared using the most up-to-date methods, and including the latest recommended medical treatments, and we are confident that this will make them easy for many clinicians to use, and will provide a useful tool in the decision-making process for the treatment of patients, and optimal medical support. The free mobile application and calculator for the JPN Guidelines 2015 is available via http://www.jshbps.jp/en/guideline/jpn-guideline2015.html.

C-reactive protein may influence decisively the prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis: a population-based cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis (AP) is controversial. We aimed to identify the patients' characteristics that may prompt clinicians to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

METHODS

This single-center retrospective cohort study included 299 consecutive patients with AP from a Portuguese hospital in 2009 to 2010. Logistic regression was used to study the association of patients' characteristics with prescription of prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

RESULTS

Persistent organ failure developed in 7% of patients (9/136). The median C-reactive protein at 48 hours after hospital admission was 154 mg/L (interquartile range, 55-271 mg/L). Bedside Index for Severity in AP score greater than or equal to 3 occurred in 14% of patients (42/299). Pancreatic necrosis was diagnosed in 21% of the patients (35/169). Computerized Tomography Severity Index score greater than 3 occurred in 23% of patients (38/169). In-hospital mortality rate was 4% (10/299). Prophylactic antibiotics were prescribed to 14% of patients (42/299). After adjusting for persistent organ failure and Computerized Tomography Severity Index score greater than 3, C-reactive protein at 48 hours after hospital admission greater than or equal to 150 mg/L was significantly associated with higher likelihood of receiving prophylactic antibiotics (odds ratio, 12.2). Prophylactic antibiotics did not improve in-hospital mortality rate (P = 0.637).

CONCLUSIONS

C-reactive protein was the most influential in prescribing prophylactic antibiotics in AP. Clinicians may need better tools to support the decision to prescribe prophylactic antibiotics in AP.

Role of antibiotic prophylaxis in necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis

Several studies have yielded conflicting results on the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in improving outcomes in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. A meta-analysis was carried out to investigate the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality.

METHODOLOGY

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies investigating impact of prophylactic systemic antibiotic used in acute necrotizing pancreatitis were retrieved from online databases. An overall analysis was done with all studies (Group 1), followed by subgroup analyses with randomized controlled trials (Group 2) and cohort studies (Group 3). Risk ratios (RR) were calculated for the impact of antibiotic prophylaxis in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis and mortality in each group using random effects model.

RESULTS

Eleven studies involving 864 patients were included. No significant differences in the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis were observed with prophylactic antibiotic use in all groups. Prophylactic antibiotic use was not associated with significant differences in all-cause mortality in Group 2 (RR = 0.75; p = 0.24) but was associated with a reduction in Groups 1 (RR = 0.66, p = 0.02) and 3 (RR = 0.55, p = 0.04). There was no statistical difference in the incidence of fungal infections and surgical interventions.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic prophylaxis does not significantly reduce the incidence of infected pancreatic necrosis but may affect all-cause mortality in acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Emergence of multidrug resistant infection in patients with severe acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Infection is the most important risk factor contributing to death in severe acute pancreatitis. Multidrug resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are an emerging problem in severe acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

From January 2009 to December 2011 the medical records of 46 patients with infected severe acute pancreatitis were reviewed retrospectively to identify risk factors for the development of MDR bacterial infection and assess the related outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 46 patients was 55 years; 38 were males. Thirty-six patients (78.3%) had necrotizing pancreatitis and all of enrolled 46 patients had suspected or proven pancreatic infection. MDR microorganisms was found in 29 (63%) of the 46 patients. A total of 51 episodes of MDR infection were collected from 11 cases of infected pancreatic pseudocysts, 36 cases of infected necrosis/infected walled-off necrosis and 4 cases of bacteremia. The most frequent MDR bacteria was methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (n = 15). Transferred patients had a higher incidence of MDR infections than primarily admitted patients (72% vs. 35%, P = .015). The mean intensive care unit stay was significantly longer in patients with MDR bacterial infections (20 vs. 2 days, P = .001). Mortality was not significantly different in the patients with MDR infections vs. those without it (14% vs. 6%, P = .411).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians should be aware of the high incidence of MDR bacterial infections in patients with severe acute pancreatitis, especially referred patients. Empiric therapy directed at these pathogens may be used in patients where severe sepsis persists, until definitive culture results are obtained.

Staged multidisciplinary step-up management for necrotizing pancreatitis

Background

Some 15 per cent of all patients with acute pancreatitis develop necrotizing pancreatitis, with potentially significant consequences for both patients and healthcare services.

Methods

This review summarizes the latest insights into the surgical and medical management of necrotizing pancreatitis. General management strategies for the treatment of complications are discussed in relation to the stage of the disease.

Results

Frequent clinical evaluation of the patient's condition remains paramount in the first 24–72 h of the disease. Liberal goal-directed fluid resuscitation and early enteral nutrition should be provided. Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is indicated when cholangitis is suspected, but it is unclear whether this is appropriate in patients with predicted severe biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Antibiotic prophylaxis does not prevent infection of necrosis and antibiotics are not indicated as part of initial management. Bacteriologically confirmed infections should receive targeted antibiotics. With the more conservative approach to necrotizing pancreatitis currently advocated, fine-needle aspiration culture of pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis will less often lead to a change in management and is therefore indicated less frequently. Optimal treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis consists of a staged multidisciplinary ‘step-up’ approach. The initial step is drainage, either percutaneous or transluminal, followed by surgical or endoscopic transluminal debridement only if needed. Debridement is delayed until the acute necrotic collection has become ‘walled-off’.

Conclusion

Outcome following necrotizing pancreatitis has improved substantially in recent years as a result of a shift from early surgical debridement to a staged, minimally invasive, multidisciplinary, step-up approach.

Effects of prophylactic antibiotics in acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is controversial. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of antibiotics administered as prophylaxis and as treatment on demand, respectively, in two prospective, non-randomized cohorts of patients.

METHODS

The study population consisted of 210 patients treated for SAP. In Group 1 (n= 103), patients received prophylactic antibiotics (ciprofloxacin, metronidazole). In Group 2 (n= 107), patients were treated on demand. Ultrasound-guided drainage and/or surgical debridement of infected necrosis were performed when the presence of infected pancreatic necrosis was demonstrated. The primary endpoints were infectious complication rate, need for and timing of surgical interventions, incidence of nosocomial infections and mortality rate.

RESULTS

Ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration [in 18 (16.8%) vs. 13 (12.6%) patients; P= 0.714], ultrasound-guided drainage [in 15 (14.0%) vs. six (5.8%) patients; P= 0.065] and open surgical necrosectomy [in 10 (9.3%) vs. five (4.9%) patients; P= 0.206] were performed more frequently and earlier [at 16.6 ± 7.8 days vs. 17.2 ± 6.7 days (P= 0.723); at 19.5 ± 9.4 days vs. 24.5 ± 14.2 days (P= 0.498), and at 22.6 ± 13.5 days vs. 26.7 ± 18.1 days (P= 0.826), respectively] in Group 2 compared with Group 1. There were no significant differences between groups in mortality and duration of stay in the surgical ward or intensive care unit.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study support the suggestion that the use of prophylactic antibiotics does not affect mortality rate, but may decrease the need for interventional and surgical management, and lower the number of reoperations.

Present and future of prophylactic antibiotics for severe acute pancreatitis

AIM: To investigate the role of prophylactic antibiotics in the reduction of mortality of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients, which is highly questioned by more and more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses.

METHODS: An updated meta-analysis was performed. RCTs comparing prophylactic antibiotics for SAP with control or placebo were included for meta-analysis. The mortality outcomes were pooled for estimation, and re-pooled estimation was performed by the sensitivity analysis of an ideal large-scale RCT.

RESULTS: Currently available 11 RCTs were included. Subgroup analysis showed that there was significant reduction of mortality rate in the period before 2000, while no significant reduction in the period from 2000 [Risk Ratio, (RR) = 1.01, P = 0.98]. Funnel plot indicated that there might be apparent publication bias in the period before 2000. Sensitivity analysis showed that the RR of mortality rate ranged from 0.77 to 1.00 with a relatively narrow confidence interval (P < 0.05). However, the number needed to treat having a minor lower limit of the range (7-5096 patients) implied that certain SAP patients could still potentially prevent death by antibiotic prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION: Current evidences do not support prophylactic antibiotics as a routine treatment for SAP, but the potentially benefited sub-population requires further investigations.

Acute pancreatitis: should we use antibiotics?

Acute pancreatitis is a common cause of hospitalization and a major source of morbidity worldwide. When it is severe, and especially when it progresses to include necrosis of the pancreas, the risk of infection rises and mortality increases. Early reports suggested prophylactic antibiotics given in severe pancreatitis prevent infection and death. More recent clinical trials do not support this benefit, and meta-analyses on the topic offer conflicting recommendations. In this article, we evaluate the body of published literature examining the use of antibiotics as a preventive measure in acute pancreatitis. The highest quality, currently available data fail to support prophylactic use of antibiotics, which should be added to treatment regimens only where infection has been proven.

Intra-abdominal fungal infections complicating acute pancreatitis: a review

Intra-abdominal infections of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrotic tissue complicate the clinical course of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) and are associated with significant morbidity. Fungal infection of necrotic pancreatic tissue is increasingly being reported. The incidence of intra-abdominal pancreatic fungal infection (PFI) varies from 5% to 68.5%. Candida albicans is the most frequently isolated fungus in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Prolonged use of prophylactic antibiotics, prolonged placement of chronic indwelling devices, and minimally invasive or surgical interventions for pancreatic fluid collections further increase the risk of PFI. Computed tomography- or ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pancreatic necrosis is a safe, reliable method for establishing pancreatic infection. Amphotericin B appears to be the most effective antifungal treatment. Drainage and debridement of infected necrosis are also critical for eradication of fungi from the poorly perfused pancreatic or peripancreatic tissues where the antifungal agents may not reach to achieve therapeutic levels. Fungal infection adversely affects the outcome of patients with SAP and is associated with increased morbidity, although the mortality rate is not increased specifically because of PFI. Although antifungal prophylaxis has been suggested for patients on broad-spectrum antibiotics, no randomized controlled trials have yet studied its efficacy in preventing PFI.

Recent developments in acute pancreatitis

The incidence of acute pancreatitis (AP) has been increasing worldwide, but the major etiologies remain gallstones and alcohol. Several studies have reported that smoking is an independent risk factor for developing AP. Classification of AP has traditionally used the categories of mild and severe disease. However, a new intermediate category of moderately severe AP has been described with intermediate characteristics including a high incidence of local complications but a low mortality. Assessment criteria that can serve as early predictors of AP severity are often complex and not sufficiently accurate. However, several recently described criteria that rely on criteria such as the body mass index, physical findings, and simple laboratory measurements could prove useful if validated in large prospective studies. Many issues related to the therapy of AP are still unresolved. Although preliminary studies support the importance of early volume expansion for the treatment of acute pancreatitis, optimization of the amount and type of fluids will require further studies. Similarly, preliminary studies suggest that enteral nutrition might benefit patients with AP and could even be useful early in the course of disease. However, the timing and type of fluids as well as the intestinal infusion site require further study. Finally, issues related to the prophylactic use of antibiotics in patients with severe AP have not been resolved. While the process of clinical investigation moves slowly, progress has been made in clinical studies of AP.

Antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis revisited

OBJECTIVE

To review studies of antibiotic prophylaxis in acute necrotizing pancreatitis published in the last decade and update recommendations.

DATA SOURCES

A search of PubMed (1998-July 2009) was conducted using the terms necrotizing pancreatitis, antibiotics, prophylaxis, and treatment. Clinical studies, meta-analyses, and review articles published in English were included. Additional references were obtained from article bibliographies. Randomized trials published before 1998 were included if indicated.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies or meta-analyses on antibiotic prophylaxis since our previous review in 1998 were evaluated; older data were included if still relevant.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Since our previous review, 4 more randomized trials, including 2 double-blind trials, have been conducted. The blinded studies found no significant difference in mortality with antibiotic prophylaxis compared with placebo, while the unblinded studies found a significant decrease in infections. Given these disparate results, available guidelines and meta-analyses provide different conclusions, usually based on exclusion or inclusion of a single trial. Based on all available data, antibiotic prophylaxis should not be used in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Instead, a more measured, on-demand use of antibiotics is preferred. Antibiotics should be added if signs and symptoms of infection are present (eg, fever, leukocytosis, positive results of cultures). Given improvements in intensive care and nutritional support, recent trials have found a lower incidence of infected necrotizing pancreatitis than before. Therefore, future trials are likely to need higher numbers of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of antibiotic prophylaxis for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is not indicated, based on 2 blinded trials. Instead, on-demand use of antibiotics appears to be appropriate. Given progress in intensive care and the high crossover rate in studies, the need for antibiotic prophylaxis may continue to be debated for decades.

Advances in managing acute pancreatitis

This review highlights advances in acute pancreatitis (AP) made in the past year. We focus on clinical aspects of AP - severe disease especially - and risk stratification tools to guide the clinical care of patients. Most patients with AP have mild disease that requires a diagnostic evaluation, self-limited supportive care, and a short hospital stay. In patients with potentially severe AP, it is important for clinicians to use available risk-stratifying tools to identify high-risk patients and initiate timely interventions such as aggressive fluid resuscitation, close monitoring, early initiation of enteral nutrition, and appropriate use of endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. This approach decreases morbidity and possibly mortality and is supported by evidence drawn from recent clinical guidelines, historical literature, and the highest quality studies published in the last year.

Exocrine pancreatic involvement in critically ill patients

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To learn about the prevalence, pathophysiology, and treatment of exocrine pancreatic involvement in critically ill patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Elevations in the levels of pancreatic enzymes are observed in up to 80% of intensive care patients. Most of these patients do not develop clinically relevant pancreatitis. However, elevations in enzyme levels do represent pancreatic damage with a risk of complications. Different factors have been discussed, which may contribute to pancreatic damage in critically ill patients. These include splanchnic hypoperfusion during shock or major surgery, bacterial translocation, elevated triglyceride levels, development of biliary sluge, and biliary pancreatitis, as well as several drugs. Imaging procedures and inflammatory markers help to identify relevant disease. Several therapeutic options have been discussed recently with a focus on early enteral nutrition.

SUMMARY

Pancreatic damage is frequently observed in critically ill patients. Although in most of these patients, this is without major clinical consequences, some patients develop relevant pancreatitis, which contributes to morbidity and mortality. Risk factors have been identified and therapeutic strategies have been changed.